1
|
|
2
|
- Monkeys reared in isolation: preference for pictures of conspecific
infants; fear reactions to threat pictures (Sackett, 1966)
- Sackett (1970): monkeys have an innate predisposition to respond to
conspecifics, suggesting the possible existence of a species-specifi=
c recognition
system
- Preference for pictures of their own species (Fujita, 1987), even wh=
en
reared without experience with conspecifics (Fujita, 1990, 1993). E.=
g.,
rhesus monkeys reared with Japanese monkeys still showed a preference
for pictures of their genetic species, rhesus monkeys (Fujita, 1990)=
|
3
|
- Laboratory monkeys daily exposed to human faces discriminated between
pictures of monkey faces but not between pictures of human faces
(Pascalis & Bachevalier, 1998)
- Use internal features to discriminate conspecifics but not to
discriminate humans (monkeys: Martin-Malivel et al., 2001; sheep:
Peirce, Leigh, & Kendrick, 2000; Peirce et al., 2001).
- Right hemisphere advantage for conspecifics but for human faces (Pei=
rce
et al., 2000, 2001)
|
4
|
- Four chimpanzees from the Language Research Center (GSU): Lana, Sher=
man,
Panzee, Mercury
- Exposure to chimpanzees:
- Three conspecifics in their daily lives
- About 12 total in their whole lives
- Exposure to humans:
- High (caretakers, researchers, vets, visitors, etc.)
- Free visible faces (no masks and shields)
- Direct interactions (extensive training for
‘language’/lexigrams and multiple cognitive tasks)
|
5
|
- Baseline trials: scores with human pictures versus scores with
chimpanzee pictures
- Categorical Perception: morphs between humans; morphs between
chimpanzees
|
6
|
- Eight unknown chimpanzees; Eight unknown humans
|
7
|
|
8
|
|
9
|
|
10
|
|
11
|
|
12
|
- The LRC chimpanzees are better at recognizing human than chimpanzee
pictorial faces
- Computational simulation is consistent with subjects’ performa=
nce
|
13
|
- Do subjects perceive faces in a categorical way?
- Emergence categorical perception effect for both humans and chimpanz=
ees?
|
14
|
|
15
|
|
16
|
- Chimpanzees with higher exposure to human faces than conspecific fac=
es
can recognize human faces more efficiently
- Categorical perception emerged only with species for which they have=
a
high expertise
|
17
|
|
18
|
- Four chimpanzees from Yerkes (Katrina, Scott, Lamar, Jarred)
- Exposure to chimpanzees: Yerkes population is large, but limited vi=
sual
contact. Only direct interaction with 1 conspecific since many years
(pair-housed )
- Exposure to humans: wear PPE
|
19
|
|
20
|
|
21
|
|
22
|
|
23
|
- Chimpanzees with higher exposure to human faces than conspecific fac=
es
can recognize human faces more efficiently (LRC)
- Yerkes recognize both human and chimpanzee faces (consistent with Pa=
rr
et al., 1998), but maybe not as fine tuned as LRC chimpanzees (no CP
effect)
|
24
|
- Rhesus monkeys reared in isolation showed a preference for pictures =
of
conspecific infants in comparison with other pictures, and showed fe=
ar
reactions to threat pictures (Sackett, 1966).
- Sackett (1970) has argued that monkeys have an innate predisposition=
to
respond to the individual features of conspecifics, suggesting the
possible existence of a species-specific recognition system.
- Monkeys prefer to look at pictures of their own species than picture=
s of
other species (Fujita, 1987), even in subjects reared without experi=
ence
with individuals of their own species (Fujita, 1990, 1993). E.g., rh=
esus
monkeys reared with Japanese monkeys still showed a preference for
pictures of their genetic species, rhesus monkeys (Fujita, 1990).
|
25
|
- Laboratory monkeys daily exposed to human faces presented novelty
preference for monkey faces but not for human faces (Pascalis and
Bachevalier, 1998)
- In some studies, monkeys (Martin-Malivel et al., 2001) and sheep (Pe=
irce
et al., 2001) did not use internal features to discriminate pictures=
of
human faces.
- In contrast, sheep used internal features to discriminate sheep faces
(Peirce, Leigh, & Kendrick, 2000). A right hemisphere advantage =
was
found in sheep with sheep faces but not with human faces (Peirce et =
al.,
2000, 2001),
|
26
|
|
27
|
|
28
|
|